ARCHIVES:

All Christianity is Self Projection as God

It sort of hit my wife and me suddenly late in our process of deconverting. Every Christian rejects something (or a lot of things) in the Bible. Particular things. Things about which the Bible is very clear. It turns out, there’s no other choice.

The Bible contains a lot of paradoxical statements, conflicting accounts that cannot be unraveled and even a formal contradiction or two. It also has commands that the Christian does not wish to obey and descriptions of God that the Christian does not want to worship.

What each Christian is telling you, though, in her or his own way, is that he or she is god. Still, Christians can’t reject the Bible entirely. That would be throwing out the baby Jesus with the holy water. The Bible is the only reason to believe certain things they do hold dear. So, in one way or another, they reject what they don’t like.

Some Christians will dismiss more of the Bible, others less. Some in pious sounding ways, and others more flagrantly. The better educated, more articulate Christians might perform mental genuflections to explain biblical contradictions and write grand systematic theologies to describe their gods, while the uneducated ones might tell you only what they feel in their hearts and the religious yuppies will tell you what meaning they take from the Bible. What each Christian is telling you, though, in her or his own way, is that he or she is god.

The result is a rank and unique pride that claims a divine stamp of approval upon the Christian’s own life, while rejecting both all of the Bible that doesn’t appeal to her or his liking and the gods constructed by other Christians, reflecting other parts of the bible.

It’s an arrogant syncretism of life and religion that we call Self-Projection as God (SPAG).

For a practical demonstration, just pick a pair of contrary or contradictory Bible verses that are on either side of a sensitive issue and ask a Christian what she or he thinks about them. The better you know the Bible and the Christian, the easier it will be to pick the appropriately contrary verses, but the result will always be the same: The Christian will start rationalizing and explaining the contradiction in a way that accommodates them to his or her own life.

Understand that we’re not merely intending to demonstrate simply that the Bible is an inconsistent hodgepodge of ancient mythology and antiquated ethics rife with error. That’s obvious and it’s not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that because the Bible is such mishmash, SPAG is the necessary and universal form of Christianity in practice, an absolute identity: All Christianity is Self-Projection as God.

28 comments:

Al humans are imperfect. Why make imperfect beings the reason why you throw away Christianity? Let's say that you're in school and you want to know the answer to a problem. Who would you rather ask? You're friend who won't be 100% sure or the teacher who knows the material backwards? If you ask the friend and he gives you the wrong answer by accident, you will be learning false material.

So don't think about humans and how they see Bible and God. We are imperfect, therefore we cannot understand everything that is in the Bible. Instead, ask God to help you find the right answers, the answers you're looking for. The Bible is called "God's Word" for a reason, He knows it inside out and understands it completely. So wouldn't asking Him for help be more beneficial to you?

Read the bible, search God with your heart and not with your mind and pray to Him for help in finding Him and He will help you if your heart is honest.

No. IF you dig deep enough and without compartmentalizing crap, you will see that Xianity IS rewritten mythology. This is in part due to humans.

And yes. Humans act on such myths, attempt to apply them to reality, and even take them to extreme, in which they end up no better than their primitive ancestors, esp in thinking. Believers want to believe the myth of Xianity is original, when indeed it is not. There is nothing new under the Sun.

the Biblr id called god's word for one reason only - it makes parting the fools and their money much easier. There is no evidence, other than collective belief - that any divinity of any sort, other than the non-existent, had any input in the creation of any document of any description.

As to your last sentence: been there and fulfilled all your conditions. Your god is either deaf, uncaring or not there.

Ooh! Matt! You must know the One True Christianity, since you're telling us what we learned wasn't it!

Seriously though? Your Bible is imperfect and self contradictory. Was man created after animals (Genesis 1) or before them (Genesis 2)?

Go back to your church and pray for your rapture. We don't troll your blog, and I kindly request that you don't troll ours. Unless you want us to follow Matthew 7:12, and go harass you on your home turf.

Because it, too, is imperfect. The Bible was written by humans, based on human perceptions of what a god should be like. As such, all the book does is reinforce primitive reward/punishment and "might makes right" thinking.

Even the stories about "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" exhibit ignorance, prejudice and occasionally outright psychosis.

"Let's say that you're in school and you want to know the answer to a problem. Who would you rather ask? You're friend who won't be 100% sure or the teacher who knows the material backwards?"

Very bad analogy. Your alleged 'teacher' Biblegod doesn't appear to know much of anything about anything. The stories in Genesis are ridiculous; the commands given in the legalistic books of the Old Testament are incitements to rape, enslavement and genocide; and the lesson in the New Testament is "You're worthless and evil, but you can redeem yourself by agreeing to let an innocent man die in your place."

Actually the article was specifically aimed at "all Christians." Whatever "venom" is in there is obviously intended to apply to any and all Christians. The author makes a great effort to dismiss even those Christians who would engage in a reasonable discussion.Like others here, I'm all for exploration. But let's not pretend that this is just a nice "let's all get along in our nice little pluralistic world" article. Rather it states that all Christians are arrogant, self-made Gods. It implies, very clearly, that those who are not Christians are more humble, more rational, more intelligent, and just all around better than Christians.Now, my guess is that the author is certainly playing to their audience. And perhaps they would not be as extreme in conversations with those who consider themselves Christians. Unfortunately, this article represents the difficulty facing Americans today. How can you have a real discussion with someone of an opposite viewpoint (be it religious, political, or otherwise) without secretly thinking of yourself as better or more enlightened.

I don't really know what to consider myself. I was raised Catholic, but i am entirely prepared for the non-existence of an afterlife. There is no proof of a god, but there is no proof really denying a god either.

I do not take anything written in the Bible seriously. The very authors of the bible suffer from SPAG, believing that their human words somehow speak the truth about god, and even if they were partially right any meaning they had were eroded away be millenia of poor translation.

That said, I have not yet departed from the very basic belief of christianity. The belief that there is a god and a man named Jesus. Perhaps i should distance myself from the title of Christian, because i do not deny the existence of other gods and i do not proclaim that one exists at all. You will never find me telling someone that their religion is wrong, I can't make that decision for myself let alone someone else, and neither will you find me proclaiming someone to be a sinner for their actions. Who am I to tell someone what is wrong from the standpoint of a deity? Is God male or female or androgynous? Is it, if it exists at all, really as righteous as so many claim it to be? Does it really give a shit about little Johnny's lost kitten or the woman who aborted her fetus? Does it care that its Latin and Hispanic followers only do so because of political rape and tryanny in the form of the Spanish crown? Does it praise or condemn the soldiers of the crusades for the murder of millions of innocent people?

These beliefs violate nearly everything across the spectrum of my(?) theology.

The thing that I'm noticing the most from reading all of these posts and comments is the brutal and raw honesty that people display. It is really refreshing to read about people who have been where I was and how they too silently struggled for so long and also felt so guilty. I thought if you weren't walking with christ, you must be evil, wicked, and not trustworthy. It's true that deconversion takes brutal honesty and courage. If only the rest of America would come on board!

David, that's a very honest thing of you to say. I, myself am still deconverting and the hardest thing for me was letting go because as you said, "... I don't want to." It's very comforting to believe in an omnipotent being. I was a devout Roman Catholic not too long ago and was a monk in a Benedictine monastery. Now, I'm finishing my Bachelor's degree and very content with my life right now-- without religion.

You have been honest and seeking. You have not preached your god and not attempted to demean us by your belief.

I say, "WELCOME!"

However we can help you in your quest, please ask. The only person who can free you from fundamentalism or, for that matter, any form of xianity, is you; and if we can provide any tools and encouragement, ask away.

Having come out of the closet, as it were, I suspect you are in more danger of being kicked by the xians than by us.

I was initially going to respond with something along the lines of, "To be fair to the original Solomon, he only proposed cutting the baby in half to find out who cared for the baby." But after thinking about it a little, I recognized the problem with the plan:Cut the baby in half? Seriously? To actually *propose* that as a solution, and to have it considered by the parties involved is cruel and barbaric. (Although, there is precedent with Abraham and Isaac.)

Solomon (named after some wise guy who thought cutting babies in half was a *good* idea): "For your knowledge god does not create someone gay."

Correct, because your god almost certainly does not exist.

"It's the person himself that makes himself gay."

False, as any competent psychologist will point out.

"God only create men & women."

False. Your god, as I mentioned before, is probably imaginary and is incapable of creating even pigsh!t.

"Gay people... ungrateful... beyond limits... no more offsprings... surely be burned in hell."

(At this point, the eyes of the Springy Goddess glaze over ever so slightly. She reaches for Her Clue-by-Four™ but reconsiders because this time, it just isn't enough. Rolling up Her sleeves, She *decks* Solomon with a right cross, then kicks him in the testicles half a dozen times as he lies writhing on the floor of the Ex-Christian dot net lobby.)

(And it *still* isn't enough, so She boots him in the ribs a couple of times, too.)

(Finally, She does reach for Her Clue-by-Four™and leans on it while She catches Her breath.)

Listen up, you sanctimonious b@stard. Homosexuality is a natural genetic variation and exists in multiple species.

Oh, and I'm a dyke. With a daughter. 'Homosexual' does *not* mean 'unable to have children.'

For your intrusion into our little home on the Web, I wish upon you the total ruin of your beliefs in the most traumatic way possible. May your impending and soon-to-be-permanent apostasy haunt your dreams nightly, and may people everywhere recognize your idiocy and turn away from your faith.

I don't think he's ultra-Orthodox. Not that the sentiments aren't similar, but the grammatical errors, the expressions he used - not quite the same. (Did he mention Torah, then edit it? I didn't see it.)

I'm still thinking evangelized Caribbean or Latino. In addition to the religious fervor, their cultures prize a stereotypical "masculinity". I guarantee if we were talking about serial adulterers, it wouldn't bother him so much.

Not so much a 'reason', Mriana, but an explanation of the linguistic oddities in Solomon's post. There's no doubt in My mind that he's one über-deluded and extremely unpleasant person, regardless of where he hails from.

Check this, Solomon, esp if you think animals would not perform such things: Australia rocked by 'lesbian' koala revelation- http://www.nzherald.co.nz/animals/news/article.cfm?c_id=500834&objectid=10425714

A while back there were to male penguins getting it on too. They were living together and all. The only problem their species has is humans- humans doing things to the environment. Other than that, they do fine as a species.

I originally suspected him to be a Muslim because he didn't mention the dead guy on the stick but still believes in hell; but on another thread he mentions the Torah. My money's on some vicious ultra-Orthodox Judaism, or some weird Christian/Orthodox fringe group.